January 2009 - council - lists.icann.org

Public comments called for on Initial Report on the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (Part A)
by Glen de Saint Géry Jan. 13, 2009

Jan. 13, 2009

[To: council[at]gnso.icann.org; liaison6c[at]gnso.icann.org] [To: ga[at]gnso.icann.org; announce[at]gnso.icann.org] [To: regional-liaisons[at]icann.org] Dear All, You are encouraged to submit comments on the Initial Report on the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (Part A) from 9 to 30 January 2009. http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-2-09jan09-en.htm Public Comment: Initial Report on the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (Part A) A public comment period opened on Friday 9 January 2009 for 21 days on an Initial Report into the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP). The IRTP Part A Policy Development Process is the first in a series of five planned PDPs to address areas for improvements in the existing Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy. http://www.icann.org/en/transfers/policy-12jul04.htm The IRTP Part A PDP concerns three 'new' issues: (1) the potential need for exchange of registrant email information between registrars, (2) the potential need for including new forms of electronic authentication to verify transfer requests and avoid 'spoofing', and (3) to consider whether the IRTP should include provisions for 'partial bulk transfers' between registrars. A Working Group, launched by the GNSO Council for this PDP, started its deliberations on 5 August 2008 and has now published an Initial Report. PLEASE NOTE: The Working Group will not make a final decision on which solution(s), if any, to propose to the GNSO Council before a thorough review of the comments received during the public comment period and in the final constituency statements has taken place. Following its deliberations, the Working Group has made some preliminary conclusions for each issue, which it hopes will inspire further comments from the public as well as the constituencies. These preliminary conclusions are as follows: Issue I - Is there a way for registrars to make Registrant E-mail Address data available to one another? The WG noted that WHOIS was not designed to support many of the ways in which it is currently used to facilitate transfers. Some members suggested that finding a way to make the Registrant e-mail address more readily available could be addressed as part of an overall technical modernization of the WHOIS protocol. This could be through updates to the existing protocol, modification of the Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP) or adoption of the Internet Registry Information Service (IRIS) protocol. However, after review and discussion none of these options received broad agreement. The WG did note that, in the absence of a simple and secure solution for providing the gaining registrar access to the registrant email address, future IRTP working groups should consider the appropriateness of a policy change that would prevent a registrant from reversing a transfer after it has been completed and authorized by the admin contact. This option would not change the current situation whereby a losing registrar can choose to notify the registrant and provide an opportunity to cancel a transfer before the process is completed. Issue II - Whether there is need for other options for electronic authentication? Based on the discussion in the Working Group, there appears to be broad agreement that there is a need for other options for electronic authentication. However, opinions in the Working Group differ as to whether these options should be developed by means of GNSO policymaking or should be left to market solutions. Issue III - Whether the policy should incorporate provisions for handling partial bulk transfers between registrars? Based on the discussion in the Working Group, there appears to be broad agreement that there is no need to incorporate provisions for handling partial bulk transfers between registrars at this stage. The Working Group believes that these scenarios can be addressed either through the existing Bulk Transfer provisions, or through existing market solutions. As stated in the ICANN Bylaws, the Initial Report is posted for public comment for 20 days. The comments received will be analyzed and used for redrafting of the Initial Report into a Final Report to be considered by the GNSO Council for further action. The Working Group would like to encourage everyone to review the complete Initial Report http://gnso.icann.org/issues/transfers/irtp-a-initial-report-08jan09.pdf [PDF, 383K] before submitting comments. Comments on the Initial Report should be sent to irtp-initial-report(a)icann.org. Public comments received can be accessed at http://forum.icann.org/lists/irtp-initial-report/. The deadline for submission of comments is 30 January 2009. Related links: Part A Initial Report: http://gnso.icann.org/issues/transfers/irtp-a-initial-report-08jan09.pdf [PDF, 383K] Existing Transfer Policy: http://www.icann.org/en/transfers/policy-12jul04.htm Thank you for your cooperation. kind regards, Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

ALAC contribution to WHOIS priority/feasibility assessment - update
by Liz Gasster Jan. 13, 2009

Jan. 13, 2009

All, Today I participated on an ALAC call to give an overview of the WHOIS studies and to explain in further detail the GNSO Council request for input on study priorities and feasibility, as well as input on the "working definitions" of key study terms. The ALAC is very interested in contributing its viewpoint but is unable to do so this week as requested. They will be able to provide input by the end of January and asked me to convey this to the GNSO Council. Thanks, Liz

1 0

RE: [council] Community Travel support Procedure for Mexico City
by Tim Ruiz Jan. 13, 2009

Jan. 13, 2009

Thanks for explanation Doug. Is there any particular reason why funded travelers have to make arrangements through ICANN Staff/Agents? Could the procedure simply allow X for airfare and X per diem for Lodging (possibly adjusted per meeting based on location) then allow the traveler to book their own airfare and accomodations and submit receipts for reimbursement? Tim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [council] Community Travel support Procedure for Mexico City From: Doug Brent <doug.brent(a)icann.org> Date: Sun, January 11, 2009 12:53 pm To: Carlos Affonso Pereira de Souza <caffsouza(a)gmail.com>, GNSO Council <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Cc: Denise Michel <denise.michel(a)icann.org> Carlos and Council, Sorry. I thought the issue of budget allocation was discussed directly with the travel committee and understood, and as noted before, I'd be happy to discuss this with relevant counselors at any time. Short answer: we have not identified a way to allocate a budget to a Supporting Organization or Constituency. Let me explain. As I've discussed with several people, my personal view is that often the best decisions are made by the people closest to the work, so why not just allocate a budget? There is a balance point that makes this travel issue awkward since there is no clear chain of fiduciary responsibility (in the corporate sense) at the Supporting Organizations level. ICANN has a fiduciary responsibility to establish a process for controlled allocation of expenditures under business laws, particularly as a tax-exempt organization. There is no easy way to implement what appears "obvious" - just give organizations a budget to spend. Financial controls are required to remain consistent with taxation rules for businesses. Resource allocation in all instances should follow pre-defined controlled processes as a way to prove ICANN has control over the kinds of business ills - including financial mismanagement and worse - that we read about in the papers these days. That's why the community travel support approach is essentially a pre-approved expense reimbursement plan. I hope that provides some additional clarity behind the rationale, and would Still like to see how we can put more flexibility into travel support while maintaining appropriate controls this for next fiscal year. Perhaps a meeting with the travel committee, including ICANN's CFO Kevin Wilson who will be taking on this work on the staff side, and other interested councilors in Mexico City would be a good next step. Thanks, Doug -- Doug Brent Chief Operating Officer ICANN Voice: +1 310.301.3871 Mobile: +1 650.996.4447 Fax: +1 310.823.8649 On 1/9/09 4:48 AM, "Carlos Affonso Pereira de Souza" <caffsouza(a)gmail.com> wrote: > This is something that we have been discussing at NCUC. It would be nice to > have some input on the eventual refusal of resolution 2 and, most what is more > important, to let the council know the reasons why one system for allocating > funds for travel expenses was chosen and not the one indicated in the GNSO > motion. Such input would surely give us more information and grounds to > decide on how to best react to the travel support procedure. > > Thank you, > Carlos > > 2009/1/9 Philip Sheppard <philip.sheppard(a)aim.be> >> Denise, >> further to our Council discussion yesterday could you please elicit a >> response to resolution 2 of the Council motion on travel support passed at >> our December 18 meeting? >> This is Council's response re Mexico City and the deadlines you referenced. >> Many thanks. >> Philip >> ------------------- >> >> Whereas: >> Council welcomes the fact that ICANN have allocated some funds for GNSO >> travel. >> >> 1. Council regrets that the current proposal imposes administrative >> difficulty and may thus reduce the total budget available. >> >> 2. Council calls upon ICANN staff to nominate by 15 January 2009 a fixed sum >> for fiscal year 2009 that will be granted to each of the constituencies >> currently recognised under the ICANN by-laws of 29 May 2008. Such sum should >> exclude any budget to cover the costs of nom com delegates or GNSO chair >> travel. >> >> 3. Council requests Constituencies to publish the names of all those who >> receive travel support together with a list of the relevant meeting(s) for >> which the support was given and which were attended by the support recipient. >> >> The motion unanimously passed by voice vote >

2 1

Correction: New gTLD GNSO Council Thursday 15 January 2009 at 16:00UTC
by Glen de Saint Géry Jan. 13, 2009

Jan. 13, 2009

[To: council(a)gnso.icann.org] Dear Council Members, As agreed upon during the Council meeting, a new gTLD Council discussion is scheduled for Thursday, 15 January 2009 at 16:00 UTC. The call will be open to observers and alternates if Council members cannot attend. Please RSVP to gnso.secretariat(a)icann.org so that we can make sure there will be enough lines. The call will be recorded and transcribed and posted on page http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/index.html Let me know if you have any questions. Thank you. Kind regards, Glen ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- California, USA (PST) UTC-8+0DST 08:00 New York/Washington DC, USA (EST) UTC-5+0DST 11:00 Buenos Aires, Argentina UTC-2+1DST 14:00 Rio de Janeiro, Brazil UTC-2+1DST 14:00 London, United Kingdom (BST) UTC+0DST 16:00 Brussels, Belgium (CET) UTC+1+0DST 17:00 Paris, France (CET) UTC+1+0DST 17:00 Barcelona, Spain (CET) UTC+1+0DST 17:00 Karachi, Pakistan UTC+5+1DST 21:00 Hong Kong, China UTC+8+0DST 00:00 Singapore, Singapore UTC+8+0DST 00:00 Melbourne, Australia (EDT) UTC+10+1DST 03:00 (Friday 16 January.) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- The DST starts/ends on last Sunday of March 2009, 2:00 or 3:00 local time (with exceptions) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For other places see http://www.timeanddate.com Dial-in details: PARTICIPANT PASSCODE: GTLD For security reasons, the passcode will be required to join the call. Country Toll Numbers Freephone/Toll Free Number ARGENTINA 0800-777-0494 AUSTRALIA ADELAIDE: 61-8-8121-4862 1-800-880-485 AUSTRALIA BRISBANE: 61-7-3102-0964 1-800-880-485 AUSTRALIA CANBERRA: 61-2-6100-1964 1-800-880-485 AUSTRALIA MELBOURNE: 61-3-9010-7733 1-800-880-485 AUSTRALIA PERTH: 61-8-9467-5243 1-800-880-485 AUSTRALIA SYDNEY: 61-2-8211-1386 1-800-880-485 AUSTRIA 43-1-92-89-654 0800-999-636 BELGIUM 32-2-402-2432 0800-4-8360 BRAZIL 0800-8912038 CHILE 1230-020-0281 CHINA* 86-400-810-4760 10800-712-1193 10800-120-1193 COLOMBIA 01800-9-156463 CZECH REPUBLIC 420-2-25-98-56-15 800-700-167 DENMARK 45-7014-0238 8088-6075 FINLAND Land Line: 106-33-164 0-800-1-12056 FINLAND Mobile: 09-106-33-164 0-800-1-12056 FRANCE LYON: 33-4-26-69-12-75 080-511-1431 FRANCE MARSEILLE: 33-4-86-06-00-75 080-511-1431 FRANCE PARIS: 33-1-70-75-00-04 080-511-1431 GERMANY 49-69-2222-52104 0800-216-1601 GREECE 30-80-1-100-0639 00800-12-5999 HONG KONG 852-2286-5632 800-964-136 HUNGARY 06-800-15227 INDIA 000-800-852-1216 INDONESIA 001-803-011-3500 IRELAND 353-1-246-0036 1800-931-782 ISRAEL 1-80-9303048 ITALY 39-02-3600-0326 800-906-585 JAPAN OSAKA: 81-6-7739-4763 00531-12-1149 JAPAN TOKYO: 81-3-5539-5154 00531-12-1149 LUXEMBOURG 352-27-000-1314 MALAYSIA 1-800-80-8121 MEXICO 001-866-627-0541 NETHERLANDS 31-20-710-9321 0800-023-4655 NEW ZEALAND 64-9-970-4641 0800-443-793 NORWAY 47-21-59-00-14 800-11982 PANAMA 011-001-800-5072119 POLAND 00-800-1210067 PORTUGAL 8008-12179 RUSSIA 8-10-8002-9613011 SINGAPORE 65-6883-9197 800-120-4057 SLOVAK REPUBLIC 421-2-322-422-15 SOUTH AFRICA 080-09-93390 SOUTH KOREA 82-2-6744-1052 00798-14800-6323 SPAIN 34-91-414-15-44 800-099-279 SWEDEN 46-8-566-10-782 0200-887-612 SWITZERLAND 41-44-580-7718 0800-000-038 TAIWAN 886-2-2795-7346 00801-137-565 THAILAND 001-800-1206-65091 UNITED KINGDOM BIRMINGHAM: 44-121-210-9015 0800-018-0795 UNITED KINGDOM GLASGOW: 44-141-202-3215 0800-018-0795 UNITED KINGDOM LEEDS: 44-113-301-2115 0800-018-0795 UNITED KINGDOM LONDON: 44-20-7019-0812 0800-018-0795 UNITED KINGDOM MANCHESTER: 44-161-601-1415 0800-018-0795 URUGUAY 000-413-598-3439 USA 1-210-795-0472 877-818-6787 VENEZUELA 0800-1-00-3205 *Access to your conference call will be either of the numbers listed, dependent on the participants' local telecom provider. Restrictions may exist when accessing freephone/toll free numbers using a mobile telephone. Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

2 1

FW: Community Travel support for Mexico City
by Glen de Saint Géry Jan. 13, 2009

Jan. 13, 2009

Forwarded From: Kevin Wilson ======================= GNSO Community members: I understand a question was raised on last week's Council call regarding per diem support in cases where ICANN hotel and airfare support are split between two individuals applying for ICANN travel support. In these cases, per diems are bundled with the hotel costs. If the hotel provides meals and in room Internet without additional charges, the per diem will be adjusted down for those items. Best regards, Kevin Wilson CFO ICANN Kevin.wilson(a)icann.org > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Philip Sheppard <philip.sheppard(a)aim.be> > Date: Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 2:42 AM > Subject: Community Travel support Procedure for Mexico City > To: denise.michel(a)icann.org > Cc: council(a)gnso.icann.org, Doug Brent <doug.brent(a)icann.org> > > Denise, > > further to our Council discussion yesterday could you please elicit a response to resolution 2 of the Council motion on travel support passed at our December 18 meeting? > > This is Council's response re Mexico City and the deadlines you referenced. > > Many thanks. > > Philip > > ------------------- > > Whereas: > Council welcomes the fact that ICANN have allocated some funds for GNSO travel. > > 1. Council regrets that the current proposal imposes administrative difficulty and may thus reduce the total budget available. > > 2. Council calls upon ICANN staff to nominate by 15 January 2009 a fixed sum for fiscal year 2009 that will be granted to each of the constituencies currently recognised under the ICANN by-laws of 29 May 2008. Such sum should exclude any budget to cover the costs of nom com delegates or GNSO chair travel. > > 3. Council requests Constituencies to publish the names of all those who receive travel support together with a list of the relevant meeting(s) for which the support was given and which were attended by the support recipient. > > The motion unanimously passed by voice vote > >

2 1

Revised:Final vote on the Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA) motion
by Glen de Saint Géry Jan. 12, 2009

Jan. 12, 2009

Dear Councillors, Please note the correction in Kristina Rosette's abstention statement. In the second sentence, the word 'fraud has been replaced by 'flawed'. Thank you and apologies for the confusion caused by the mistake. Glen The voting is closed on the Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA) motion which was before Council on Thursday 8 January 2009 and copied below. The final vote is as follows. The motion did not obtain a supermajority. 9 Votes Against: Mike Rodenbaugh, Zahid Jamil CBUC), Tony Harris, Tony Holmes, Greg Ruth (ISP), William Drake, Carlos Souza (NCUC) (one vote each) Mary Wong (NCUC), Cyril Chua (IPC) absentee votes, (one vote each) Due to a misunderstanding in the process and email issues, Cyril Chua's ballot was received 4 hours after the ballot was scheduled to close. As the balloting had not been formally closed at that time, his vote was accepted into the tally. 4 Abstentions: Philip Sheppard CBUC), Ute Decker, Kristina Rosette (IPC), Terry Davis (NCA) (one vote each) (see reasons below.) 14 Votes in favour: Tim Ruiz, Stéphane van Gelder (Registrar c.), Jordi Iparraguirre, Chuck Gomes, Edmon Chung (Registry c.) (two votes each) Adrian Kinderis, absentee vote (Registrar constituency) (two votes) Avri Doria, Olga Cavalli (NCA) (one vote each) Reasons for abstaining ====================== Philip Sheppard (CBUC): We are concerned about the sequential approach to the RAA changes. Ute Decker (IPC): I abstain because of the way the consultative process has been run, how the input of registrants and users has been largely ignored and because of the weighted voting that has been granted. Kristina Rosette (IPC): Because contrary to Dr. Twomey's statement in March and June in 2007 and the Board's June 2007 resolution, the RAA amendment consultative process essentially excluded registrants and users including brand owners, and ignored their input. In addition to that flawed consultative process, the Registrar constituency is now being granted weighted voting on whether the amendments should be approved. And finally, because the highly restricted, narrow and limited language resulting from that flawed consultative process will render the majority of the purported improvements moot and/ or unusable. Terry Davis (NCA): I have not been part of this process long enough to take a position on this yet. I am still understanding all the issues associated. Mike Rodenbaugh (CBUC): the reason for my 'no' vote. I believe we have an alternative as I suggested, and have not heard any reason not to do so. We could have a fast track working group to determine which of these proposed amendments truly have consensus of the Council. There has not been any consultative process with the Council to find out which amendments have full consensus and could be adopted immediately, and could be reworded and then adopted quickly. But at the moment we do not have clear consensus on this amendment package. Then there are a bunch of open issues that are not mentioned in the package at all and that we need assurance will be addressed. So that is the reason for my 'no' vote. ........................................................................................... Motion on the Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA) Made by: Tim Ruiz Seconded: Chuck Gomes Whereas: ICANN has undertaken a lengthy consultative process related to amending the Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA); The parties have arrived at a set of amendments that are generally thought to be worthy of inclusion in the RAA; Resolve: The GNSO Council supports the attached RAA amendments (documented in http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/current-list-proposed-raa-amendments-16dec08.p…) and recommends to the Board that they be adopted. Thank you. Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Fwd: Community Travel support Procedure for Mexico City
by Denise Michel Jan. 12, 2009

Jan. 12, 2009

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Kevin Wilson <kevin.wilson(a)icann.org> Date: Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 12:06 PM Subject: Community Travel support Procedure for Mexico City Dear Supporting Organisation participants: The following information is provided to help you take advantage of the travel funding made available for the ICANN Mexico City meeting through the new Community Travel Support Procedure<http://www.icann.org/en/topics/travel-support/revised-procedure-11aug08-en.…>(CTSP). Since travel arrangements for the Mexico City meeting need to be completed this month, your organisation may want to use a "temporary" process for providing a list of ICANN-funded travelers for this meeting. By *22 January 2009*, staff needs a list of supported travelers - 13 names from the GNSO and 12 names from the ccNSO including the chair and NomCom appointees. (Please note the additional important deadlines for Mexico City travel are included below.) We look forward to receiving the final, proposed travel allocation procedure for your SO. Please email it to me and ICANN's travel coordinator at the following addresses: kevin.wilson(a)icann.org and travel-support(a)icann.org *1) Deadlines for ICANN-funded travel to the **Mexico City meeting. * * *To ensure all available travel funds can be used for the ICANN Mexico City meeting, which starts 2 November, the following schedule will apply: * * - *22 January (14:00 PDT) – *deadline for each Supporting Organisation Chair to provide ICANN Staff – travel-support(a)icann.org – with the list of travelers who are to receive travel support under the CTSP. If your SO has named you as a recipient of support for Mexico City, you will be contacted by ICANN Travel Coordination Staff with complete information on how your arrangements will be made. * * - *28 January (14:00 PDT) – *deadline for room bookings. All travelers' arrival and departure dates need to be finalized by this date because this is the date by which all hotel room reservations must be contracted for or released. After this date, any additional cost for changes to travelers' arrival and departure details will be paid by the traveler, unless otherwise agreed to in advance, in writing, by ICANN Travel Staff.* * - *28 January (14:00 PDT) – *deadline for flight bookings. Any approved traveler who has not completed their flight on or before this time will no longer be eligible for sponsored air travel.* * *2) Important change* - In response to community requests for this meeting air fare and hotel support can now be split between two designated travelers (1 person would receive only hotel support and another person would receive only air fare support, and this would be counted as 1 funded traveler for the purposes of an SO's allocation. *3) Requirements for ICANN-funded travelers for the **Mexico City include the following: * - The names of all ICANN-supported travelers will be publicly posted on the ICANN community travel webpage ( http://www.icann.org/en/topics/travel-support/) along with the class of travel supported, and the amount of travel funding received. - For newly supported travelers (excluding Chair and NomCom-appointees) people who receive travel support will be asked to complete a meeting attendance form which will be publicly posted, and also will be required to attend all relevant, scheduled SO-related meetings in Mexico City (as identified by your SO). Each SO is encouraged to provide guidance on the general content requirements for travelers' reports. - Per diem payments to funded travelers will be issued after their reports are received and attendance records verified. This is in response to the community requests to ensure transparency, accountability and efficacy for ICANN travel funding, and also is consistent with the approach used for ICANN's fellowship program participants. * * *4) Individuals who are not members of an SO Council can be selected to receive travel support. *As stated, the goal of the CTSP is "to lower the barrier to participation, broaden the group of participants and, advance the work" of I CANN. SO's are asked to provide a list of individuals to receive travel funding "based on best meeting the policy-making needs of the entity." Any SO member is eligible to receive travel funding. * * The GNSO has been asked to provide ICANN Staff with the names of 13 individuals (including chair and NomCom appointees) to receive travel funding, and the ccNSO has been asked to provide ICANN Staff with the names of 12 individuals (including chair and NomCom appointees) to receive travel funding. Although these numbers were based on the total number of Council members from each SO, travel funding is not restricted to Council members. *5) SO's should consider factoring "need" into selection of travelers. *This is one element which SOs may wish to consider when determining who should receive travel support. This supports ICANN's goal of lowering the barrier to participation. *6)* *If an SO does not use all of its available travel slots for a given meeting, they can be 'rolled over' to a subsequent meeting. *This applies until the end of each ICANN fiscal year, after which point the unused support is 'lost' and the new fiscal year – and a potentially revised CTSP applies. Please don't hesitate to contact me if you need further information. Kevin Wilson

5 6

Final vote on the Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA) motion
by Glen de Saint Géry Jan. 12, 2009

Jan. 12, 2009

Dear Councillors, The voting is closed on the Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA) motion which was before Council on Thursday 8 January 2009 and copied below. The final vote is as follows. The motion did not obtain a supermajority. 9 Votes Against: Mike Rodenbaugh, Zahid Jamil CBUC), Tony Harris, Tony Holmes, Greg Ruth (ISP), William Drake, Carlos Souza (NCUC) (one vote each) Mary Wong (NCUC), Cyril Chua (IPC) absentee votes, (one vote each) Due to a misunderstanding in the process and email issues, Cyril Chua's ballot was received 4 hours after the ballot was scheduled to close. As the balloting had not been formally closed at that time, his vote was accepted into the tally. 4 Abstentions: Philip Sheppard CBUC), Ute Decker, Kristina Rosette (IPC), Terry Davis (NCA) (one vote each) (see reasons below.) 14 Votes in favour: Tim Ruiz, Stéphane van Gelder (Registrar c.), Jordi Iparraguirre, Chuck Gomes, Edmon Chung (Registry c.) (two votes each) Adrian Kinderis, absentee vote (Registrar constituency) (two votes) Avri Doria, Olga Cavalli (NCA) (one vote each) Reasons for abstaining ====================== Philip Sheppard (CBUC): We are concerned about the sequential approach to the RAA changes. Ute Decker (IPC): I abstain because of the way the consultative process has been run, how the input of registrants and users has been largely ignored and because of the weighted voting that has been granted. Kristina Rosette (IPC): Because contrary to Dr. Twomey's statement in March and June in 2007 and the Board's June 2007 resolution, the RAA amendment consultative process essentially excluded registrants and users including brand owners, and ignored their input. In addition to that fraud consultative process, the Registrar constituency is now being granted weighted voting on whether the amendments should be approved. And finally, because the highly restricted, narrow and limited language resulting from that flawed consultative process will render the majority of the purported improvements moot and/ or unusable. Terry Davis (NCA): I have not been part of this process long enough to take a position on this yet. I am still understanding all the issues associated. Mike Rodenbaugh (CBUC): the reason for my 'no' vote. I believe we have an alternative as I suggested, and have not heard any reason not to do so. We could have a fast track working group to determine which of these proposed amendments truly have consensus of the Council. There has not been any consultative process with the Council to find out which amendments have full consensus and could be adopted immediately, and could be reworded and then adopted quickly. But at the moment we do not have clear consensus on this amendment package. Then there are a bunch of open issues that are not mentioned in the package at all and that we need assurance will be addressed. So that is the reason for my 'no' vote. ........................................................................................... Motion on the Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA) Made by: Tim Ruiz Seconded: Chuck Gomes Whereas: ICANN has undertaken a lengthy consultative process related to amending the Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA); The parties have arrived at a set of amendments that are generally thought to be worthy of inclusion in the RAA; Resolve: The GNSO Council supports the attached RAA amendments (documented in http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/current-list-proposed-raa-amendments-16dec08.p…) and recommends to the Board that they be adopted. Thank you. Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

New gTLD GNSO Council Thursday 16 January 2009 at 16:00UTC
by Glen de Saint Géry Jan. 12, 2009

Jan. 12, 2009

[To: council(a)gnso.icann.org] Dear Council Members, As agreed upon during the Council meeting, a new gTLD Council discussion is scheduled for Thursday, 15 January 2009 at 16:00 UTC. The call will be open to observers and alternates if Council members cannot attend. Please RSVP to gnso.secretariat(a)icann.org so that we can make sure there will be enough lines. The call will be recorded and transcribed and posted on page http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/index.html Let me know if you have any questions. Thank you. Kind regards, Glen ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- California, USA (PST) UTC-8+0DST 08:00 New York/Washington DC, USA (EST) UTC-5+0DST 11:00 Buenos Aires, Argentina UTC-2+1DST 14:00 Rio de Janeiro, Brazil UTC-2+1DST 14:00 London, United Kingdom (BST) UTC+0DST 16:00 Brussels, Belgium (CET) UTC+1+0DST 17:00 Paris, France (CET) UTC+1+0DST 17:00 Barcelona, Spain (CET) UTC+1+0DST 17:00 Karachi, Pakistan UTC+5+1DST 21:00 Hong Kong, China UTC+8+0DST 00:00 Singapore, Singapore UTC+8+0DST 00:00 Melbourne, Australia (EDT) UTC+10+1DST 03:00 (Friday 16 January.) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- The DST starts/ends on last Sunday of March 2009, 2:00 or 3:00 local time (with exceptions) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For other places see http://www.timeanddate.com Dial-in details: PARTICIPANT PASSCODE: GTLD For security reasons, the passcode will be required to join the call. Country Toll Numbers Freephone/Toll Free Number ARGENTINA 0800-777-0494 AUSTRALIA ADELAIDE: 61-8-8121-4862 1-800-880-485 AUSTRALIA BRISBANE: 61-7-3102-0964 1-800-880-485 AUSTRALIA CANBERRA: 61-2-6100-1964 1-800-880-485 AUSTRALIA MELBOURNE: 61-3-9010-7733 1-800-880-485 AUSTRALIA PERTH: 61-8-9467-5243 1-800-880-485 AUSTRALIA SYDNEY: 61-2-8211-1386 1-800-880-485 AUSTRIA 43-1-92-89-654 0800-999-636 BELGIUM 32-2-402-2432 0800-4-8360 BRAZIL 0800-8912038 CHILE 1230-020-0281 CHINA* 86-400-810-4760 10800-712-1193 10800-120-1193 COLOMBIA 01800-9-156463 CZECH REPUBLIC 420-2-25-98-56-15 800-700-167 DENMARK 45-7014-0238 8088-6075 FINLAND Land Line: 106-33-164 0-800-1-12056 FINLAND Mobile: 09-106-33-164 0-800-1-12056 FRANCE LYON: 33-4-26-69-12-75 080-511-1431 FRANCE MARSEILLE: 33-4-86-06-00-75 080-511-1431 FRANCE PARIS: 33-1-70-75-00-04 080-511-1431 GERMANY 49-69-2222-52104 0800-216-1601 GREECE 30-80-1-100-0639 00800-12-5999 HONG KONG 852-2286-5632 800-964-136 HUNGARY 06-800-15227 INDIA 000-800-852-1216 INDONESIA 001-803-011-3500 IRELAND 353-1-246-0036 1800-931-782 ISRAEL 1-80-9303048 ITALY 39-02-3600-0326 800-906-585 JAPAN OSAKA: 81-6-7739-4763 00531-12-1149 JAPAN TOKYO: 81-3-5539-5154 00531-12-1149 LUXEMBOURG 352-27-000-1314 MALAYSIA 1-800-80-8121 MEXICO 001-866-627-0541 NETHERLANDS 31-20-710-9321 0800-023-4655 NEW ZEALAND 64-9-970-4641 0800-443-793 NORWAY 47-21-59-00-14 800-11982 PANAMA 011-001-800-5072119 POLAND 00-800-1210067 PORTUGAL 8008-12179 RUSSIA 8-10-8002-9613011 SINGAPORE 65-6883-9197 800-120-4057 SLOVAK REPUBLIC 421-2-322-422-15 SOUTH AFRICA 080-09-93390 SOUTH KOREA 82-2-6744-1052 00798-14800-6323 SPAIN 34-91-414-15-44 800-099-279 SWEDEN 46-8-566-10-782 0200-887-612 SWITZERLAND 41-44-580-7718 0800-000-038 TAIWAN 886-2-2795-7346 00801-137-565 THAILAND 001-800-1206-65091 UNITED KINGDOM BIRMINGHAM: 44-121-210-9015 0800-018-0795 UNITED KINGDOM GLASGOW: 44-141-202-3215 0800-018-0795 UNITED KINGDOM LEEDS: 44-113-301-2115 0800-018-0795 UNITED KINGDOM LONDON: 44-20-7019-0812 0800-018-0795 UNITED KINGDOM MANCHESTER: 44-161-601-1415 0800-018-0795 URUGUAY 000-413-598-3439 USA 1-210-795-0472 877-818-6787 VENEZUELA 0800-1-00-3205 *Access to your conference call will be either of the numbers listed, dependent on the participants' local telecom provider. Restrictions may exist when accessing freephone/toll free numbers using a mobile telephone. Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Nomination Acceptance
by Gomes, Chuck Jan. 12, 2009

Jan. 12, 2009

Sincere thanks to Olga for nominating me for Council vice chair and to Adrian for seconding the nomination. I accept the nomination. If I am elected, I commit to serving as vice chair to the best of my ability until the new vice chairs are seated under the new bicameral structure mid-year. I will continue to support Avri as Chair including backing her up when needed during meetings and cooperating with her and Glen in various Council activities as I have tried to do since first being elected vice chair. I will also do my best to fulfill vice chair functions in a neutral capacity, always trying to make clear when I am acting in my personal capacity or as a representative of the RyC and not acting as vice chair. Chuck Gomes

2 2

FW: [council] Call for nominations for GNSO Council Vice Chair
by Glen de Saint Géry Jan. 11, 2009

Jan. 11, 2009

Forwarded From: Olga Cavalli Hi Glen, I would like to nominate Chuck Gomes for vice chair, should I send this to the gnso list? regards Olga 2009/1/8, Glen de Saint Géry <Glen(a)icann.org<mailto:Glen@icann.org>>: [To: council[at]gnso.icann.org<http://gnso.icann.org>] Dear Council Members, A. NOMINATIONS A formal nomination period, for the election of GNSO Council vice chair for the period running concurrently with GNSO Council chair, from 1 February 2009 until the newly structured GNSO Council is seated and a new chair is elected, is now open for two weeks from Friday, 9 January 2009 to Friday 23 January 2009 at 15:00 UTC. All nominations should be seconded within the nomination period. Only GNSO Council members are eligible to make nominations and second nominations. Please send all nominations and seconds to: gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org<http://gnso.icann.org> and/or the Council mailing list: <council[at]gnso.icann.org<http://gnso.icann.org>> Nominations and seconds will be acknowledged and posted to the council list. B. VOTING PROCEDURE The voting will be by a roll call vote at the GNSO Council meeting on 29 January 2009. The winning candidate must receive at least 14 affirmative votes. In case of a tie, there will be a second round of voting. C. GNSO COUNCIL MEMBERS ARE ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: All GNSO Council members are eligible to vote, that is, 3 representatives from each constituency, Registrars, gTLD registries, Commercial and Business Users (CBUC), Non Commercial Users (NCUC), Intellectual Property (IPC), and Internet Service Providers and Connectivity Providers (ISPCP) and the 3 Nominating Committee appointees. Liaisons from the ALAC, and the GAC and the ccNSO Observer do not vote. Please note the GNSO Council meeting on 29 January 2009 as an important date because there must be quorum for the vote. Thank you Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org

2 3

FW: Ballot on the Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA) motion
by Glen de Saint Géry Jan. 11, 2009

Jan. 11, 2009

From: Mary Wong [mailto:MWong@piercelaw.edu] Sent: dimanche 11 janvier 2009 19:40 Subject: Re: Ballot on the Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA) motion * On the motion on the Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA) I vote: * [ ] Yes * [X ] No * [ ] Abstain * Password: blue-10 This process should be completed within 72 hours of the meeting which ended at 21:11 UTC on Thursday 8 January 2009. Completed ballots are due NLT 21:11 UTC, Sunday, 11 January 2009. (22:11 CET, 05:11 HongKong/Singapore, 08:11 Melbourne Monday 12 January 2009) Motion on the Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA) Made by: Tim Ruiz Seconded: Chuck Gomes Whereas: ICANN has undertaken a lengthy consultative process related to amending the Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA); The parties have arrived at a set of amendments that are generally thought to be worthy of inclusion in the RAA; Resolve: The GNSO Council supports the attached RAA amendments (documented in http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/current-list-proposed-raa-amendments-16dec08.p…) and recommends to the Board that they be adopted. Thank you. Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org tel : +33 (0) 9 524 570 44 Voice mail: +33 4 93 45 21 27 Cell + 33 6 21 79 24 54 Blackberry email: gnso(a)mobileemail.vodafone.fr Mary W S Wong Professor of Law Franklin Pierce Law Center Two White Street Concord, NH 03301 USA Email: mwong(a)piercelaw.edu<mailto:mwong@piercelaw.edu> Phone: 1-603-513-5143 Webpage: http://www.piercelaw.edu/marywong/index.php Selected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584

1 0

New gTLD Draft Applicant Guidebook Update
by Glen de Saint Géry Jan. 11, 2009

Jan. 11, 2009

[To: council[at]gnso.icann.org; liaison6c[at]gnso.icann.org] [To: ga[at]gnso.icann.org; announce[at]gnso.icann.org] [To: regional-liaisons[at]icann.org] http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-3-09jan09-en.htm New gTLD Draft Applicant Guidebook Update 9 January 2009 The first public comment period on the Draft Applicant Guidebook for new gTLDs has closed. The period opened on 24 October 2008, and was 76 days long after it closed 7 January to account for later publication of the Guidebook in Arabic, Chinese, French, Russian and Spanish. ICANN continued to receive and accept English comments received until the January 7 deadline considering the end of year holidays. The comment period received over 300 comments from participants from 24 different countries. Among the many participants were individuals and organizations representing intellectual property interests, brand owners, business owners, ICANN supporting organizations, domain name industry players, and governments. "This level of interest and feedback to the Draft Guidebook shows that the comment process is working. All the comments and concerns will be considered and a response will be provided" said Paul Levins, Executive Officer and Vice President Corporate Affairs. Some of the key concerns raised by the community that are immediately obvious are: Brand protection issues and the impact on brands and trademark owners Financial considerations, including evaluation fees, ongoing registry fees, and refund procedures Various issues surrounding the proposed registry agreement, particularly, price controls, registry/registrar separation, the management of future agreement amendments, equitable treatment, and others General comments and concerns related to expanding the top level and its impact on the global marketplace, specific industries and Domain Name System stability. "There is no doubt that we need to address these and other legitimate concerns before proceeding to open the application process" said Mr Levins. Respondents had the option to comment on the Guidebook as a whole or on one of its six modules. Just over half (55 percent), chose to comment on the Guidebook; the rest commented on specific modules or topics. The fifth module, covering the base agreement between new registries and ICANN, received the most comments (around 30 percent). The responses are now being summarized and evaluated. A comprehensive analysis of the comments will be released in early February. "We will also be holding conferences in different global locations to further explain the Guidebook, the changes envisaged and to have further dialogue. Alongside the feedback received from these and other outreach events, the summary and analysis will inform ICANN staff through the next program development phase, which will mean amending the current guidebook" Mr Levins said. "I'd like to take this opportunity to thank all those that contributed their responses to the first public comment period. ICANN looks forward to continuing a productive dialogue on this that will result in amendments to the application process" Levins said. New gTLDs and the Internet Openness Change Innovation After years of discussion and thought, generic top-level domains (gTLDs) are being expanded. They will allow for more innovation, choice and change to a global Internet presently served by just 21 generic top-level domain names. A draft Applicant Guidebook has been developed with opportunities for public comment. The draft Guidebook describes processes for objections to applications. There has been detailed technical scrutiny to ensure the Internet's stability and security. There will be an evaluation fee, but it will recover costs only (expenses so far, application processing and other costs) and it will be reviewed after the first round of applications. ICANN is a not for profit corporation dedicated to coordinating the Internet's addressing system. If fee collection exceeds expenses, the community will be consulted as to how that excess is to be used. Promoting competition and choice is one of the principles upon which ICANN was founded. In a world with 1.5 billion Internet users (and growing), diversity, choice and innovation are key. The Internet has supported huge increases in choice, innovation and the competition of ideas and expanding new gTLDs is an opportunity for more. Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

FW: Ballot on the Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA) motion
by Glen de Saint Géry Jan. 11, 2009

Jan. 11, 2009

Forwarded from Adrian Kinderis * On the motion on the Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA) I vote: * [X] Yes * [ ] No * [ ] Abstain * Password: violet-9

1 0

Help Build The New GNSO
by Glen de Saint Géry Jan. 9, 2009

Jan. 9, 2009

[To: council[at]gnso.icann.org; liaison6c[at]gnso.icann.org] [To: ga[at]gnso.icann.org; announce[at]gnso.icann.org] [To: regional-liaisons[at]icann.org] http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-09jan09-en.htm Help Build The New GNSO Volunteers Are Now Being Accepted To Join Work Teams That Will Develop GNSO Improvement Implementation Plans 9 January 2009 The GNSO is creating five new Work Teams to be the incubators through which implementation plans for ICANN Board approved GNSO improvement recommendations can be developed and proposed by members of the ICANN community. Each Work Team will be made up of community volunteers who have interest in and expertise in one of five main focus areas: Constituency/Stakeholder Group Operations GNSO Operations New Working Group Model. New GNSO Policy Development Process (PDP) Community Communications and Coordination We encourage you to participate in one of the Work Teams. If you do have an interest in participating, please send a message to gnso.secretariat(a)icann.org indicating which Work Team you want to join. Please include in the message your name, affiliation (constituency or individual), company/organization, position/title, email address, time zone, telephone numbers, and describe your specific interest (professional and/or personal) in joining the team. All personal information will be kept confidential. The Work Teams are open to all interested volunteers. Work Team meeting times will probably overlap, so please consider joining only one Work Team. Background information and the scope of each newly chartered team are summarized below. Background Information The ICANN Board announced sweeping recommendations for improving the GNSO last June at their meeting in Paris. The implementation work of the GNSO Improvements effort is underway and there are many exciting opportunities available for ICANN community input and support to help achieve the goals and objectives adopted by the Board. The effort is progressing on four parallel tracks: The GNSO Council is working to develop the transition to a newly structured GNSO Council by June 2009. Existing GNSO constituencies are preparing to submit their re-confirmations to the ICANN Board. New Stakeholder Groups are developing petitions and charters for ICANN Board recognition, and The GNSO is creating five special Work Teams to develop specific proposals, processes and mechanisms for implementing the ICANN Board's Recommendations. All four areas require significant investments of time and brainpower from members of the ICANN community, but the Work Team efforts, in particular, need an infusion of enthusiasm, passion, expertise and fresh ideas from the entire community to move the implementation forward. Scope of the Work Teams Constituency Operations Team (COT) This team will develop guidelines and mechanisms to help GNSO constituencies and stakeholder groups operate in ways that ensure transparency, accountability and accessibility, including outreach efforts to encourage broader participation within the GNSO by explaining the added value of membership in these groups. In its Paris recommendations, the Board directed GNSO constituencies to develop participation rules and operating procedures that set certain minimum standards regarding transparency and accountability. The Board emphasized that criteria for participation in any ICANN constituency should be objective, clearly stated, and standardized. In addition, the Board directed constituencies to develop global, targeted outreach programs aimed at increasing participation and interest in the GNSO policy process, including information on the option to self-form new constituencies. Some of the specific recommendations approved by the Board include: Develop a global outreach program to broaden participation in current constituencies. Enhance existing constituencies by developing recommendations on the following: Develop a set of top-level participation guidelines based on the principles as defined in the GNSO recommendations, while recognizing differences between constituencies and that one size may not fit all constituencies; and Develop a "tool kit" of basic administrative, operational and technical services available to all constituencies Please refer to the draft COT Charter for more information: https://st.icann.org/icann-osc/index.cgi?constituency_operations_team. Communication and Coordination Team (CCT) This team will develop tools for increased communication effectiveness and efficiency within the GNSO and improve GNSO communication and coordination with other ICANN structures, including members of the ICANN Board, other Supporting Organizations (SOs) and Advisory Committees (ACs). The Board stated that the Council as well as the GNSO constituencies should consider additional ways in which the GNSO can further improve communication, cooperation and coordination with other ICANN structures. The Board added that there should be more frequent contact and communication between the GNSO Council, GNSO constituencies and the members the Council elects to the Board, and among the Chairs of the GNSO, other Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees especially in advance of each ICANN Meeting. Some of the specific recommendations approved by the Board include: Improve the GNSO's: Web site Document management capacity Ability to solicit meaningful public comments on its work Coordination with other ICANN structures. Please refer to the draft CCT Charter for more information: https://st.icann.org/icann-osc/index.cgi?osc_communications_team. GNSO Council Operations Team (GCOT) This work team will develop any changes needed to the Council's operational procedures and role in response to the Board approved GNSO structure including determining what steps are needed to establish the role of the Council as a "strategic manager of the policy process" and preparing clear rules for the establishment of new constituencies within stakeholder groups, while recognizing that differences exist between stakeholder groups and constituencies. The Board recommended that the Council move away from being a legislative body concerned primarily with voting towards becoming a strategic entity focused on overseeing and managing Working Groups, which will be primarily engaged in developing policy for the GNSO. The Council should adopt term limits and implement a training and development curriculum for its members. The Board endorsed a new bicameral voting structure for the newly reorganized Council comprised of four broad stakeholder groups. It authorized the establishment of a "contracted party house" (made up of registry and registrar stakeholder group representatives) and a second "non-contracted party house" (made up of commercial and non-commercial stakeholder group representatives) and set parameters for their respective compositions. The Board also approved the presence of a voting Nominating Committee Appointee (NCA) in each house and subsequently authorized a third Council-level non-voting appointee. The Board also approved a methodology for the GNSO Council to select a Chair and approved various voting thresholds recommended by the community. Some of the specific recommendations approved by the Board include: Determine what steps are needed to establish the role of the Council as a "strategic manager of the policy process." Define and develop scope and responsibilities of any other standing "committees" as recommended by the BGC WG (those suggested to date: committee to analyze trends; committee to benchmark policy implementation) Develop "Statement of Interest" and "Declaration of Interest" forms. Develop curriculum for training Council members, constituents, facilitators and others. Prepare clear rules for the establishment of new constituencies within stakeholder groups, while recognizing that differences exist between stakeholder groups and constituencies. Review and recommend amendments as appropriate regarding methods for encouraging, promoting and introducing new constituencies, while recognizing that differences exist between stakeholder groups and constituencies. Please refer to the draft GCOT Charter for more information: https://st.icann.org/icann-osc/index.cgi?gnso_operations_team. Working Group Model Team (WGMT) This team will collaborate to develop a new Working Group model for GNSO policy development and decision making. The ICANN Board recommended that Working Groups become the focal point for GNSO policy development to enhance the process by making it more inclusive and representative, and, ultimately, more effective and efficient. The Board noted that this approach can be a more constructive way of establishing areas of agreement than task forces, where membership is limited and discussion can become polarized along constituency lines. Working Groups also enable key parties to become involved in the beginning and work together to address complex and/or controversial issues. Appointing skilled chairs and drafters, as well as proper scoping of the Working Group's objectives, will be integral parts of a successful model. The Board urged that steps be taken immediately to move to a Working Group model for future policy development work, developing appropriate operating principles, rules and procedures that can draw upon expertise gained from other organization's successful policy development efforts, as appropriate. Please refer to the draft WGMT Charter for more information: https://st.icann.org/gnso_transition/index.cgi?pdp_team. Policy Development Process (PDP) Team (PDPT) This team will work to develop a more efficient and effective policy development process for the GNSO community. The Board emphasized that the GNSO Policy Development Process (PDP) needs to be revised to make it more effective and responsive to ICANN's policy development needs. It should be brought in-line with the time and effort actually required to develop policy and made consistent with ICANN's existing contracts (including, but not limited to, clarifying the appropriate scope of GNSO "consensus policy" development). The Board stated that, while the procedure for developing "consensus policies" will need to continue to be established by the Bylaws as long as required by ICANN's contracts, the GNSO Council and Staff should develop and propose new PDP rules for the Board's consideration and approval that contain more flexibility. The new rules should emphasize the importance of the preparation that must be done before launch of a Working Group or other activity, such as public discussion, fact-finding, and expert research in order to properly define the scope, objective and schedule for a specific policy development goal, and the development of metrics for measuring success. Please refer to the draft PDPT Charter for more information: https://st.icann.org/gnso_transition/index.cgi?pdp_team For additional information about the GNSO Improvements Implementation process please consult the GNSO Improvements Information Page at http://gnso.icann.org/en/improvements/ Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Provisional schedule for Mexico City GNSO meetings
by Glen de Saint Géry Jan. 9, 2009

Jan. 9, 2009

Dear All, The Mexico City ICANN Meetings are round the corner and to help you plan we would like to draw your attention to a provisional schedule under 'Topics for upcoming meetings' in the action item list found at: http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/pending-action-list.pdf There will be GNSO Council working sessions on Saturday, 28 February and Sunday, 1 March 2009 starting at 9:00 am local time, (15:00 UTC, 07:00 PST, 10:00 EST, 16:00 CET, 23:00 Singapore) Working groups will have the opportunity to meet face to face and if possible all participants should plan on arriving in time for the Saturday working session. The agenda still has to be finalized and some sessions like the Operations and Policy Process Steering Committees will run in parallel. As the schedule comes more into focus over the next few weeks, the pending action list will be updated, http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/pending-action-list.pdf so please check back for further updates over the next month. All meetings will be supported by remote participation facilities, recordings and most will have transcriptions. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you. Kind regards, Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Update from Registration Abuse Charter Drafting Team to the GNSO Council
by Liz Gasster Jan. 9, 2009

Jan. 9, 2009

All, Today the charter drafting team on registration abuse met for the first time. The group plans to meet weekly but it recognized early on that it would not be ready to offer a proposed charter by 15 January as requested by the Council. The team proposes to complete its assignment no later than 12 February, in time for the Council to consider the proposed charter at its upcoming 19 February meeting. Currently the members of the drafting team are: Olga Cavalli - NomCom Kristina Rosette - IPC Mike Rodenbaugh - CBUC Greg Aaron - Registry c. James Bladel - Registrar c. The team urges participation from the ISPCP constituency and NCUC, as well as interested AC participation. I've reprinted the relevant resolution below for your reference. Thanks, Liz _______________________________________ Resolution on the GNSO Issues Report on Registration Abuse Policies Whereas: The GNSO Issues Report on Registration Abuse Policies indicated that further review, evaluation and study be done before a PDP is initiated, Resolved: That a drafting team be formed to create a proposed charter for a working group to investigate the open issues documented in the issues report on Registrations Abuse Policy. Specifically: 9.1 Review and Evaluate Findings A first step would be for the GNSO Council to review and evaluate the findings, taking into account that this report provides an overview of registration abuse provisions, but does not analyse how these provisions are implemented in practice and whether they are deemed effective in addressing registration abuse. 9.2 Identify specific policy issues Following the review and evaluation of the findings, the GNSO Council would need to determine whether there are specific policy issues regarding registration abuse. As part of this determination it would be helpful to define the specific type(s) of abuse of concern, especially distinguishing between registration abuse and other types of abuse if relevant. 9.3 Need for further research As part of the previous two steps, ICANN Staff would recommend that the GNSO Council determines where further research may be needed - e.g. is lack of uniformity a substantial problem, how effective are current registration abuse provisions in addressing abuse in practice, is an initial review or analysis of the UDRP required? The WG charter should be ready for review by the council on or before 15 January 2009 and will be voted on at the council meeting of 29 January 2009 at which time the council will take the by-laws required PDP vote.

2 1

GNSO Council teleconference 8 January 2009 MP3 recording
by Glen de Saint Géry Jan. 9, 2009

Jan. 9, 2009

[To: ga[at]gnso.icann.org; announce[at]gnso.icann.org [To: liaison6c[at]gnso.icann.org; council[at]gnso.icann.org] Please find the MP3 recording of the GNSO Council teleconference, held on 8 January, 2009 at: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-council-20090108.mp3 http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/#jan Happy listening! Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Absentee vote on Motion on the Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA)
by Glen de Saint Géry Jan. 8, 2009

Jan. 8, 2009

Dear Councilors, In keeping with the proxy vote procedures, all councilors who were absent from the meeting today, Thursday 8 January 2009 are invited to send the GNSO secretariat <gnso.secretariat(a)icann.org> a request for a ballot. Councilors noted as absent: Adrian Kinderis, Cyril Chua, Mary Wong. You will then be sent a ballot with an option to vote, YES, NO or ABSTAIN. The current bylaws require a reason for abstaining on a policy recommendation so, if you abstain, please indicate your reason. This process should be completed within 72 hours of the meeting which ended at 21:11 UTC on Thursday 8 January 2009. Completed ballots are due NLT 21:11 UTC, Sunday, 11 January 2009. (22:11 CET, 05:11 HongKong/Singapore, 08:11 Melbourne Monday 12 January 2009) Motion on the Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA) Made by: Tim Ruiz Seconded: Chuck Gomes Whereas: ICANN has undertaken a lengthy consultative process related to amending the Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA); The parties have arrived at a set of amendments that are generally thought to be worthy of inclusion in the RAA; Resolve: The GNSO Council supports the attached RAA amendments (documented in http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/current-list-proposed-raa-amendments-16dec08.p…) and recommends to the Board that they be adopted. Thank you. Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

GNSO Council Reolutions 8 January 2009
by Glen de Saint Géry Jan. 8, 2009

Jan. 8, 2009

Dear Council Members, Ahead of the complete minutes please find the resolutions that were passed at the GNSO Council meeting on 8 January 2009. Thank you. Kind regards, Glen Motion 1 ========= The GNSO Council confirmed the election of Avri Doria, 24 votes in favour, 1 vote against and 1 person did not vote, as the GNSO Council chair for the period 1 February 2009 for the period until the newly structured GNSO Council is seated and a new chair is elected. Passed by voice vote with one abstention from Avri Doria. Motion 2 ========= Motion on gTLD Implementation Proposed by Chuck Gomes, seconded by Tony Harris Whereas: Implementation Guideline E states, "The application submission date will be at least four months after the issue of the Request for Proposal and ICANN will promote the opening of the application round." (See Final Report, Part A, Introduction of New Generic Top-Level Domains, dated 8 August 2007 at http://gnso.icann.org/issues/new-gtlds/pdp-dec05-fr-parta-08aug07.htm#_Toc4… ) The intent of the GNSO with regard to Guideline E was to attempt to ensure that all potential applicants, including those that have not been active in recent ICANN activities regarding the introduction of new gTLDs, would be informed of the process and have reasonable time to prepare a proposal if they so desire. The minimum 4-month period for promoting the opening of the application round is commonly referred to as the 'Communications Period'. It appears evident that a second Draft Applicant Guidebook (RFP) will be posted at some time after the end of the two 45-day public comment periods related to the initial version of the Guidebook (in English and other languages). Resolve: The GNSO Council changes Implementation Guideline E to the following: Best efforts will be made to ensure that the second Draft Applicant Guidebook is posted for public comment at least 14 days before the first international meeting of 2009, to be held in Mexico from March 1 to March 6. ICANN will initiate the Communications Period at the same time that the second Draft Applicant Guidebook is posted for public comment. The opening of the initial application round will occur no earlier than four (4) months after the start of the Communications Period and no earlier than 30 days after the posting of the final Applicant Guidebook (RFP). As applicable, promotions for the opening of the initial application round will include: Announcement about the public comment period following the posting of the second Draft Applicant Guidebook (RFP) * Information about the steps that will follow the comment period including approval and posting of the final Applicant Guidebook (RFP) * Estimates of when the initial application round will begin. 19 Votes in favour: Philip Sheppard, Zahid Jamil, Ute Decker, Tony Holmes, Tony Harris, Greg Ruth, William Drake, Carlos Souza, Terry Davis, Avri Doria, Olga Cavalli (one vote each) Stéphane van Gelder, Jordi Iprraguirre, Edmon Chung, Chuck Gomes (two votes each) 1 Vote against: Kristina Rosette (one vote) 3 Abstentions: Tim Ruiz (two votes) Mike Rodenbaugh (one vote) Absent: Adrian Kinderis, Cyril Chua, Mary Wong. Motion 3 ========= Aniticipated GNSO and ccNSO implementation of processes to introduce IDN TLDs in 2009 Proposed by Chuck Gomes, seconded by Adrian Kinderis with friendly amendments from Mike Rodenbaugh and Edmon Chung Whereas both the GNSO and ccNSO are anticipating implementation of processes to introduce IDN TLDs in 2009, Resolve 1) the GNSO Council strongly believes that neither the New gTLD or ccTLD fast track process should result in IDN TLDs in the root before the other unless both the GNSO and ccNSO so agree, and 2) fast track IDN ccTLDs should not be entered into the root if they do not have an enforceable commitment to do the following: i) follow security and stability requirements such as those contained in gTLD Registry contracts, IDN Guidelines and IDN standards; ii) pay ICANN fees sufficient to ensure that IDN ccTLDs are fully self-funding and are not cross-subsidized by other ICANN activities. 18 Votes in favour: Philip Sheppard, Mike Rodenbaugh, Zahid Jamil, Ute Decker, William Drake, Carlos Souza, Avri Doria, Olga Cavalli (one vote each) Tim Ruiz, Stéphane van Gelder, Chuck Gomes, Edmon Chung, Jordi Iparraguirre (two votes each) 5 Votes against: Kristina Rosette, Tony Holmes, Tony Harris, Greg Ruth, Terry Davis. Absent: Adrian Kinderis, Mary Wong, Cyril Chua. Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Call for nominations for GNSO Council Vice Chair
by Glen de Saint Géry Jan. 8, 2009

Jan. 8, 2009

[To: council[at]gnso.icann.org] Dear Council Members, A. NOMINATIONS A formal nomination period, for the election of GNSO Council vice chair for the period running concurrently with GNSO Council chair, from 1 February 2009 until the newly structured GNSO Council is seated and a new chair is elected, is now open for two weeks from Friday, 9 January 2009 to Friday 23 January 2009 at 15:00 UTC. All nominations should be seconded within the nomination period. Only GNSO Council members are eligible to make nominations and second nominations. Please send all nominations and seconds to: gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org and/or the Council mailing list: <council[at]gnso.icann.org> Nominations and seconds will be acknowledged and posted to the council list. B. VOTING PROCEDURE The voting will be by a roll call vote at the GNSO Council meeting on 29 January 2009. The winning candidate must receive at least 14 affirmative votes. In case of a tie, there will be a second round of voting. C. GNSO COUNCIL MEMBERS ARE ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: All GNSO Council members are eligible to vote, that is, 3 representatives from each constituency, Registrars, gTLD registries, Commercial and Business Users (CBUC), Non Commercial Users (NCUC), Intellectual Property (IPC), and Internet Service Providers and Connectivity Providers (ISPCP) and the 3 Nominating Committee appointees. Liaisons from the ALAC, and the GAC and the ccNSO Observer do not vote. Please note the GNSO Council meeting on 29 January 2009 as an important date because there must be quorum for the vote. Thank you Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Initial Report on the Inter-Registrar Transfers Policy - Part A PDP posted
by Glen de Saint Géry Jan. 8, 2009

Jan. 8, 2009

[To: council(a)gnso.icann.org; liaison6c(a)gnso.icann.org] [To: Gnso-irtp-pdp-jun08(a)icann.org] Dear All, The Initial Report on the Inter-Registrar Transfers Policy - Part A Policy Development Process http://gnso.icann.org/issues/transfers/irtp-a-initial-report-08jan09.pdf is posted on pages: http://gnso.icann.org/ http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/ http://gnso.icann.org/issues/ The report will be put out for public comments from 9 January to 30 January 2009. Watch for the notice and please and submit your comments. Thank you. Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

FW: Community Travel support Procedure for Mexico City
by Glen de Saint Géry Jan. 8, 2009

Jan. 8, 2009

Forwarded From: Kevin Wilson Sent: jeudi 8 janvier 2009 21:06 Subject: Community Travel support Procedure for Mexico City Dear Supporting Organisation participants: The following information is provided to help you take advantage of the travel funding made available for the ICANN Mexico City meeting through the new Community Travel Support Procedure<http://www.icann.org/en/topics/travel-support/revised-procedure-11aug08-en.…> (CTSP). Since travel arrangements for the Mexico City meeting need to be completed this month, your organisation may want to use a "temporary" process for providing a list of ICANN-funded travelers for this meeting. By 22 January 2009, staff needs a list of supported travelers - 13 names from the GNSO and 12 names from the ccNSO including the chair and NomCom appointees. (Please note the additional important deadlines for Mexico City travel are included below.) We look forward to receiving the final, proposed travel allocation procedure for your SO. Please email it to me and ICANN's travel coordinator at the following addresses: kevin.wilson(a)icann.org<mailto:kevin.wilson@icann.org> and travel-support(a)icann.org<mailto:travel-support@icann.org> 1) Deadlines for ICANN-funded travel to the Mexico City meeting. To ensure all available travel funds can be used for the ICANN Mexico City meeting, which starts 2 November, the following schedule will apply: * 22 January (14:00 PDT) - deadline for each Supporting Organisation Chair to provide ICANN Staff - travel-support(a)icann.org<mailto:travel-support@icann.org> - with the list of travelers who are to receive travel support under the CTSP. If your SO has named you as a recipient of support for Mexico City, you will be contacted by ICANN Travel Coordination Staff with complete information on how your arrangements will be made. * 28 January (14:00 PDT) - deadline for room bookings. All travelers' arrival and departure dates need to be finalized by this date because this is the date by which all hotel room reservations must be contracted for or released. After this date, any additional cost for changes to travelers' arrival and departure details will be paid by the traveler, unless otherwise agreed to in advance, in writing, by ICANN Travel Staff. * 28 January (14:00 PDT) - deadline for flight bookings. Any approved traveler who has not completed their flight on or before this time will no longer be eligible for sponsored air travel. 2) Important change * In response to community requests for this meeting air fare and hotel support can now be split between two designated travelers (1 person would receive only hotel support and another person would receive only air fare support, and this would be counted as 1 funded traveler for the purposes of an SO's allocation. 3) Requirements for ICANN-funded travelers for the Mexico City include the following: * The names of all ICANN-supported travelers will be publicly posted on the ICANN community travel webpage (http://www.icann.org/en/topics/travel-support/) along with the class of travel supported, and the amount of travel funding received. * For newly supported travelers (excluding Chair and NomCom-appointees) people who receive travel support will be asked to complete a meeting attendance form which will be publicly posted, and also will be required to attend all relevant, scheduled SO-related meetings in Mexico City (as identified by your SO). Each SO is encouraged to provide guidance on the general content requirements for travelers' reports. * Per diem payments to funded travelers will be issued after their reports are received and attendance records verified. This is in response to the community requests to ensure transparency, accountability and efficacy for ICANN travel funding, and also is consistent with the approach used for ICANN's fellowship program participants. 4) Individuals who are not members of an SO Council can be selected to receive travel support. As stated, the goal of the CTSP is "to lower the barrier to participation, broaden the group of participants and, advance the work" of I CANN. SO's are asked to provide a list of individuals to receive travel funding "based on best meeting the policy-making needs of the entity." Any SO member is eligible to receive travel funding. The GNSO has been asked to provide ICANN Staff with the names of 13 individuals (including chair and NomCom appointees) to receive travel funding, and the ccNSO has been asked to provide ICANN Staff with the names of 12 individuals (including chair and NomCom appointees) to receive travel funding. Although these numbers were based on the total number of Council members from each SO, travel funding is not restricted to Council members. 5) SO's should consider factoring "need" into selection of travelers. This is one element which SOs may wish to consider when determining who should receive travel support. This supports ICANN's goal of lowering the barrier to participation. 6) If an SO does not use all of its available travel slots for a given meeting, they can be 'rolled over' to a subsequent meeting. This applies until the end of each ICANN fiscal year, after which point the unused support is 'lost' and the new fiscal year - and a potentially revised CTSP applies. Please don't hesitate to contact me if you need further information. Kevin Wilson

1 0

MOTION 1 ON gTLD IMPLEMENTATION
by Anthony Harris Jan. 8, 2009

Jan. 8, 2009

I would like to second this motion as presented by Chuck Gomes. Tony Harris Motions on gTLD Implementation Motion 1 (tabled until 8 January meeting) Made by Chuck Gomes Seconded by: Whereas: Implementation Guideline E states, "The application submission date will be at least four months after the issue of the Request for Proposal and ICANN will promote the opening of the application round." (See Final Report, Part A, Introduction of New Generic Top-Level Domains, dated 8 August 2007 at http://gnso.icann.org/issues/new-gtlds/pdp-dec05-fr-parta-08aug07.htm#_Toc4… ) The intent of the GNSO with regard to Guideline E was to attempt to ensure that all potential applicants, including those that have not been active in recent ICANN activities regarding the introduction of new gTLDs, would be informed of the process and have reasonable time to prepare a proposal if they so desire. The minimum 4-month period for promoting the opening of the application round is commonly referred to as the 'Communications Period'. Considerable delays have been incurred in the implementation of new gTLDs and the GNSO wishes to minimize any further delays. It appears evident that a second Draft Applicant Guidebook (RFP) will be posted at some time after the end of the two 45-day public comment periods related to the initial version of the Guidebook (in English and other languages). Resolve: The GNSO Council changes Implementation Guideline E to the following: * Best efforts will be made to ensure that the second Draft Applicant Guidebook is posted for public comment at least 14 days before the first international meeting of 2009, to be held in Mexico from March 1 to March 6. * ICANN will initiate the Communications Period at the same time that the second Draft Applicant Guidebook is posted for public comment. * The opening of the initial application round will occur no earlier than four (4) months after the start of the Communications Period and no earlier than 30 days after the posting of the final Applicant Guidebook (RFP). * As applicable, promotions for the opening of the initial application round will include: * Announcement about the public comment period following the posting of the second Draft Applicant Guidebook (RFP) * Information about the steps that will follow the comment period including approval and posting of the final Applicant Guidebook (RFP) * Estimates of when the initial application round will begin.

5 9

RAA motions - resend
by Avri Doria Jan. 8, 2009

Jan. 8, 2009

thee are supposed to be two motions. In my last ruhed email I repeated the one that is n the wiki. The two motions tabled last meeting until this one are: > > Whereas: > - ICANN has undertaken a lengthy consultative process related to > amending the Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA); > - The parties have arrived at a set of amendments that are generally > thought to be worthy of inclusion in the RAA; > > Resolve: > The GNSO Council supports the attached RAA amendments and recommends > to the Board that they be adopted. > > Second motion: > > Whereas: > - The GNSO Council has recommended that the RAA amendments developed > by the ICANN community be adopted; > - There is a belief that additional amendments to the RAA may be > required; > - The Registrar Constituency is open to continuing the dialogue > about future changes to the RAA; > > Resolve: > The GNSO Council calls on ICANN to establish a consultative process > by which to review the superset of community-suggested RAA issues > and amendments not addressed in the present set of amendments and to > work with Registrars to develop a procedure for proposing additional > amendments in the future.

1 0